- (1.) The defendant-applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 14 August, 2015, passed by Addl. District Judge (Court No.8), Mathura in Civil Revision No. 72 of 2014, whereby amendment application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C has been rejected being subsequent purchaser.
(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned orders per se is illegal, admittedly vendor is not interested to pursue the lis , therefore, in order to protect the suit property, the applicant would be a necessary party to the suit. He placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors, 2013 AIR(SC) 2389.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no finding to the effect that the contesting respondent-defendant has colluded with the plaintiff and is not interested in the suit.;